EVIDENCE IN DUNEDIN.

Otago Witness, Issue 2664, 5 April 1905, Page 18

EVIDENCE IN DUNEDIN.

{TRADES AND LABOUR COUNCIL'S I i REPRESENTATIVE. ' J The Land Commission held its cc"ond <

j sitting in Dunedin in the Land Board room lon Mondaj', all the commissioners being present. John Askew Scott said he was a journalist and editor of the Otago Liberal. He had . been appointed by the Dtago Trades and j Labour Council to give evidence on their behalf and on behalf of the unions affiliated J v.-ith the council. The membership of the affiliated unions was about 5000. Speaking ! generally, they were opposed to the pro- ' posai to allow Crown tenants under the I lease-in-^Jerpe^uity system to obtain the , freehold on the ground, first of all, that it was opposed to public policy : and, in the ! second place, because it constituted a breach lof faith with the State. The sale of Crown . land and of lands_ acquired by the Crown j should be discontinued, and in future all j la-nds administered by the Crown should be j leased at their fair rental value and subject to periodical revaluation. They were J opposed, further, to any extension of the I freehold o>i *the ground' that the freehold j-and landlord system was the one great bar to the progress of the great mass of the ! people. It was the one great factor wlreh j kept ihem from reaping the full benefit of the progressive legislation passed on^their ' behalf. The chief ground on which they considered that the proposal was opposed to public policy was that it deprived the j State -of the vast increase in the value of laud 'which had come about through the progress of the community and without any effort on -the part of the owners of the j land. The process of substantial increases . in the value of la ad was going on in Dun- ' edin. The value of the leasehold land in the colony, according to the statement prepared by the Lands Department, had risen ! from £6,635,975 to £7.300,512— a total increase of £664,537. The period was not ; stated in the table, but it covered the ' actual land, including land leased under the . Lend . for Settlements Act, but excluding timber and mineral reserves. If the freehold -was granted to these leaseholders the State would really be making them a present of that amount, or. rather, making a present of it in many cases to the moneylender. The sum represented the unearned j inereme-nt. The demand for the freehold was | really a confiscation of the unearned mere- ' »ient of the land. In plain English, it was a bare, bald steal from the State. It was asking the Sfcate to sell an article which would increase in ■value very largely later ' on. As to the breach of faith, the Crown tenants had been given this land at a very low rental -on the whole. The value of that land had increased, and the land should be giving a larger rental now. The tenants had had the use o? the land at this very t moderate rental, md they showed their gratitude by asking the State to give them the right to it altogether, and deprive the State even " cf the moderate rental it now 1 get. As to the way in which the freehold affected the workers more -particularly, he had to say that the way in which the' freehold operated to the special^ detriment of the workers and business people in towns was by devouring an altogether exce-.sive proportion of thedr wages or profits in the sl.aps of rent. He quoted John Stuart Mill and Professor Thorokl Rodgers as two recognised standard authorities on this subiect. In an Gfncial memorandum issued a short time ago by Mr Tregear, the Secretary of the Labour Department, he brought out very clearly that although wages had risen there had been a very much larger increase in the rents, and he showed that there was no hope of bringing any adequate measure of prosperity to the workers so long as j the present system continued. That was j one .great reason why the Labour party j opposed the freehold*. Another objection | to the proposal to extend the freehold was that ifc would be fatal to the land for settlements policy. The Government had just lately purchased two large estates — Mount Vernon for £95,369 and' the Greenfield for £79,300. If the demand for the freehold was successful they would ha#-e to ee!l these lands again, and the absurdity of bbying large estates one year and selling them the next would soon hecome apparent, and the land for settlements system would be thoroughly discredited. In saying that the extension oi the freehold would be fatal to a land for settlements policy, he was expressing not only his own opinion and the opinion of the party, but also the opinion of the founder of the land for settlements policy. Sir John M'Kenzie. Sir Robert Stout said : " I take it that in a system of land for settlement you must keep to the lease — you cannot allow purchase of the freehold." A further objection was that if the Cro-Fj tenants were allowed the option { of purchasing, other tenant*, such as City Corporation, Harbour Board, and educational bodies' tenants would demand the came right. That that was not an imaginary difficulty was proved by the evidence given the other day by Mr Donald Reid, who said distinctly that he was in "favour of giving them all the right of pur- , cha-=e. He was practically a " whole- ! hogger " in tho matter of giving these tenants a rig-lit to the freehold. In other J words, all these endowment* and reserves, including. possibly, re^creyticn reserves, were to be taken from the people and put j into the hands of individuals. Mr Reid did j not ,<-ay how tho revenue which would be ' lost was to be replaced. That would work c;ha~troi:"ly for Duiiedin. At a meeting oX ih^ OLago Lea^uo, foi'uud to auwuice

| the commercial interests of Otago and Duni edin, it was pointed out that the one hope j for Dunedin was to geb a free port and i reduced freight and charges, and ie was I agreed that the only hope of that was an increase in the value of the Harbour Board •endowments and the increased rcvenuo which would be obtained from them. If these endowments were taken away it would be a very seriotts matter for Dunedin. He would Hire to say a word about the alleged natural yearning ere^ Bzutisher had for the freehold. To say that merely because most men had a certain yearning therefore the State should gratify that yearning , seemed the very queerest kind of reasoning. • There were a gieat many natural yearnings that had to go ungratified. Most people had«a natural yearning for a good balance at the bank and as little work to do as possible, but no one was so eccentric a? to , suggest that the State should gratify these 1 yearnings. Any yearning that conflicted i with ihe> highest wolibeing of the comI munity had no claim to recognition from the State. Moreover, whatever was legitimate in that desire for the possession of land wao fully satisfied by the leasehold provision. The legitimate element in that desire was the wish for a permanent home and for security for improvements and the fruits of one's industry, which was more effectually , secured undc>- the leasehold arrangement than under the freehold where the owner of the land was continually liable to fall . into the hands of mortgagees and moneyi lenders. Further, the adoption of the leasehold system and the refusal to grant the I freehold was in accordance with the proj gressive spirit of the time. That was seen in a hundred directions. When, a goldfield j was discovered lately in Japan, and Japan j announced to the world that no private j individual wets to be allowed to exploit the , gieat natural resources of rhe field, the world I applauded Ihc wisdom cf Japan. "When the i Federal Government announced that the -j site of the Federal capital was not to be j on any account alienated from the Commonwealth everybody agreed with the wisdom jof the proposal. Although he had spoken i as the representative of \he Trades and j Labour Council and the organised workers, j and to some extent had spoken from their i point of view, he did not for a moment mean to suggest that the refusal of the freehold was to be carried out simply in the interests of the working classes. He believed it would be entirely in the interests j of the whole community. He agreed w ith I the^witness who appeared before the oomJ mission and said he was a freeholder for himself and a leaseholder for the country. The whole principle on which this thing J should be settled was the interest of the ! country, and he believed that the extension of the leasehold and <he abstaining from an extension of the freehold was in the interests not only cf the workers, but of the whole community. The Chairman complimented the witness j <Jn the elearne&s of his evidence. One I thing had occurred to him, and he would I put it to Mr Scott. There was a great j deal of back country, consisting of hilly and bush lands, which could only be tackled by men of large heart — men who would not be daunted by the ordinary difficulties. He feared that the yearning for the freehold . was so strong in the hearts of these men ' that, if they were refused the freehold, they > would not take up this back country, and ifc would remain in its virgin state. The request for the freehold was really very moderate indeed, because a man worked , I there all his life, and he worked not only I for himself, but with the idea of providing ' | a home for his children ; and if the lease- | hold sj-skmi was io be applied so univers- j ally and without any exception these in- I dividuals would not tackle the wilderness, j Witness faid he merely wanted to say ' that, so far a= the value of the land was ! due to the work of these pioneers, that would be absolutely ;-ccured to them. The ! desire for a permanent home and the j_ ! desire for a special incentive to take up >" that land might be met by securing the land on s lea^e to themselves and their descendantc — by a kind of lease in perpetuity, which would be an incentive to them to take up land and work it under these difficulties. la reply to questions, witness" said that on j the general principles on which he had spoken he had expressed the views of the Trades and Labour Council. In connection w ith workmen's home?, he would like the. whole thing to be worked by the State ' | through the municipality. The- land might ' he bought by that authority, and the build- ' ing? erected by them and let out at low rents to the workers. He regarded tho cities and the country districts as mutually inter-dependent. The city afforded a good market for tho country. They reacted on each other. The success of the colony depended on the founding; of flourishing inckis- ' tries as well as on the settlement of the ' land. He would give Crown tenants every concession that might reasonably be given to them to make their lot comfortable, short of parting with the people's right and in- j terest in the land. If land, decreased in ' value the tenant's reni; should be reduced. ' The periods of revaluation might be 21 years. He supported the exemption in the income tax, and thought that there should be no exemption under the land tax. Therehad never been a proposal made by the Lal>our party to 3pp!y revaluation retrospectively, or to revalue lands at periods of three or £he years. Qn behalf of tho

| I workers he could say that there was no antagonism between them and the settlers in ; the country. The town workers had the ! strongest sympathy with the small settler ■' and the struggling farmer. Ho thcraght all impi'ov&mcn's should belong- to the man who made them, and the whole of the unearned increment should belong to the State. If it , could be shown that some of the increased ■ value was due to the improvements of tho occupier, then he thought ifc should belong to that occupier. He was in favour of the> principle of the Land for Settlements Act, but he did not believe in a 999-years' leas 3. He admitted that there might be an increment that was not unearned, but resulted from the labour of the sett.er. He would give this to the settler. Robert Cotton, farmer and rnnholder at "Wuipori, said that his farm contained about 500 acres freehold. He had also 6000 acres in one pace, 2000 acres in another, while his son had 30,000 acres adjoining — all under pastoral leas&. The present system of constituting Land Boards had given satisfaction in his exparionce. He considered, hoyrever, that they should have more discretionary powers. SuiTaco-sowing would considerably increase lhe carrying capacity of his run. The only thing in his lease which tended to prevent him getting the fullest advantage from his run was the fact that the Land Board had no power to grant him leave to cultivate. The witness thought freehold was the onlr thing that would take men to the back country. He- believed in freehold, and favoured the deferred-payment system as the most successful' means of getting it. At 2 o'clock no witnesses offered themselves, and the commissionars discussed fdr some time the power given to them in their commission to inquire into the position o£ ■education and other endowments. The Chairman said he did not think they covdd touch education endowments, though he regarded corporation and Harbour Board endowments as fairly within their scope. After reading the commission, it was suggested that advice should be asked on the matter from the Solicitor-general, through tho Minister of Lands, but the question was left in a vague state, no motion being put. ' Mr Johnston said he would havr. liked bo examine the chairman of the University Council as to its endowments. Mr Anstev said he had expected to see someone in Dun&din on behalf of the Otago School Commissioners. He had an idea at one time of calling for the commissioners' books. Bfe thought that if witnesses did not come forward voluntarily they should be summoned to attend. The commission had power to subpoena anyone, and to call T*>r the production of books, papers, and other documents. He suggested that word should be sent to the Mayor of Dunedin and the chairman of the Otago Harbour Board ; they mig-ht have information to lay before til-* 3 commission ' The Chairman said he understood th-e Harbour Board had only the- endowments it had reclaimed Both the gentleman referred to had boen informed that tin* commission would sit in Dunedin. and a reply had been received from Mr Fairbairn. town clerk, on behalf of the Mayor, statinpthat he had no information to lay before the commission. At this stage the secretary was despatched to the Town Hall to ascertain if the town clerk would- give evidence, but that official also replied that he had nothing to lay before the commission. The corporation tenants, he said, weie satisfied. He supplied the secretary with a copy of a corporation lease, and gave him some information contained in a parliamentary paper of two years asro wifh reference to the rental derived by the City Council from the city's enrJowmpnts. After further discussion it was decided to ask the managers of some of tho wool end jrrain businesses in the city to attend next day. j The Chairman said that Mr John Roberts had promised to give evidence on Tuesday morning. Towards the end of the sitting one of the commissi oners bethought himself of a likely witness, and at once proceeded in quest of him. He returned in a few minutes ompty-handed, and the commission adjourned at half-past 3 until 10 o'clock , uext morning. j